At least Steve Goddard publishes his evidence for us to make of what we will, whereas you just make airy, god-like pronouncements without apparently thinking that you need to substantiate any of them. That is why I consider your comments worthless.

Obviously, any single reading above pH 7.0 is alkaline– so any mention of “more acidic– less acidic” when all readings of an entire dataset are at or above 7.0 is just erroneous, not to mention misleading– ANY summaries using these figures should be restricted to being described as “more alkaline– less alkaline”– but those with an unpublicized agenda won’t deem it necessary to follow such restrictions……

Brendan- “One data source at one point on the planet, with a very low sample rate, is not very reliable.”

Sarc on/
Its teleconnected (h/t hockeyteam) to the entire globe. Monterey is a *special* place for ocean pH.
/Sarc off.

I agree that this is only one location where high quality measurements have been made.

“More comprehensive studies do show that the ocean is getting more acidic.”

Monterey is the most comprehensive (long time span, frequent sampling, well controlled data collection) dataset available. The ‘comprehensive’ global studies are a disaster of poor spatial and temporal sampling. To create a comprehensive global dataset for ocean pH, need to retrofit all of the ARGO units with pH sensors and then collect data for 50 years.

1- Is there sufficient *measured* (not modeled) data to extract a global trend over a centennial time period?
2- Is the extracted trend different from *measured* variations before industrialization ramped up?
3- Is the extracted trend due to human impacts on the environment (CO2, land use changes, etc)?

Currently the answer to (1) is hell no. The other questions cannot be answered.
The entire ocean acidification claim becomes faith-based conjecture. Its useless as a contribution to science, but it is extremely valuable for policy-based evidence-making.